Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, September will mark the 60th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine, the nine African-American students who enrolled in the then-all-white Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Ask anyone who lived through the crisis, and they will tell you they remember it vividly. They may not have been there in person, but they remember the photos, those searing images of an angry mob, the stoic students, the bayoneted troops, all gathering in a high school, of all places. Perhaps the most searing image is of Elizabeth Eckford, one of the nine who was then only 15 years old. She didn't get word that the other students were going as a group. She went alone in a simple black-and- white dress she had made just for the occasion. The mob baited her, menaced her, cursed her, some threatened to lynch her. She later said of her walk to the school's entrance: ``It was the longest block I've ever walked in my whole life.'' I think it is of the highest importance that we preserve their story and share it with our kids. It is a reminder of pretty sad times in our history and, more important, of the courage shown by nine young Arkansans, who helped our State and our Nation overcome deep-seated prejudices by appealing to the better angels of our nature. We preserve historic battlefields like Yorktown and Gettysburg because we want our children to know what it took to gain and keep our freedom--the sacrifices made, the hardships endured. Equally important is preserving historic sites like Central High, where our citizens began the long road to freedom from oppression and intolerance. That is why we made Central High School a historic site years ago, though with one oversight. There are seven homes across the street from the school. Their exteriors were in many of the pictures that are now so famous. There has long been a movement to preserve those exteriors so future generations will be able to see Central High exactly as it looked when the Little Rock Nine arrived to school. I am proud to say that today I am introducing a bill with three of my colleagues--the senior Senator of Vermont Pat Leahy, Congressman French Hill of Little Rock, and civil rights legend Congressman John Lewis-- that would do just that. It would extend the boundary of the Central High historical site to include these seven homes. It would add about an acre and a half to the park, although I should say this bill would not authorize the Federal Government to take ownership of the homes and wouldn't allow the National Park Service to buy them in the future. Instead, it would simply encourage the homeowners and National Park Service to work together to preserve these homes so future generations could see them and learn from them. That is one reason our bill has the support of the homeowners, the Central High Neighborhood Association, and my State's historic preservation advocacy group, Preserve Arkansas. All three have written to me to express support for the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have their letters printed in the Record.

Mr. COTTON. There is widespread agreement in the community and in our State that this site is not just a part of Arkansas' history, it is a part of our national heritage. Central High stands as a reminder of an article Billy Graham published during the crisis, ``No Color Line in Heaven.'' It was a hard-won lesson and one I think we should do everything we can to pass on to the next generation.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, September will mark the 60th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine, the nine African-American students who enrolled in the then-all-white Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Ask anyone who lived through the crisis, and they will tell you they remember it vividly. They may not have been there in person, but they remember the photos, those searing images of an angry mob, the stoic students, the bayoneted troops, all gathering in a high school, of all places. Perhaps the most searing image is of Elizabeth Eckford, one of the nine who was then only 15 years old. She didn't get word that the other students were going as a group. She went alone in a simple black-and- white dress she had made just for the occasion. The mob baited her, menaced her, cursed her, some threatened to lynch her. She later said of her walk to the school's entrance: ``It was the longest block I've ever walked in my whole life.'' I think it is of the highest importance that we preserve their story and share it with our kids. It is a reminder of pretty sad times in our history and, more important, of the courage shown by nine young Arkansans, who helped our State and our Nation overcome deep-seated prejudices by appealing to the better angels of our nature. We preserve historic battlefields like Yorktown and Gettysburg because we want our children to know what it took to gain and keep our freedom--the sacrifices made, the hardships endured. Equally important is preserving historic sites like Central High, where our citizens began the long road to freedom from oppression and intolerance. That is why we made Central High School a historic site years ago, though with one oversight. There are seven homes across the street from the school. Their exteriors were in many of the pictures that are now so famous. There has long been a movement to preserve those exteriors so future generations will be able to see Central High exactly as it looked when the Little Rock Nine arrived to school. I am proud to say that today I am introducing a bill with three of my colleagues--the senior Senator of Vermont Pat Leahy, Congressman French Hill of Little Rock, and civil rights legend Congressman John Lewis-- that would do just that. It would extend the boundary of the Central High historical site to include these seven homes. It would add about an acre and a half to the park, although I should say this bill would not authorize the Federal Government to take ownership of the homes and wouldn't allow the National Park Service to buy them in the future. Instead, it would simply encourage the homeowners and National Park Service to work together to preserve these homes so future generations could see them and learn from them. That is one reason our bill has the support of the homeowners, the Central High Neighborhood Association, and my State's historic preservation advocacy group, Preserve Arkansas. All three have written to me to express support for the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have their letters printed in the Record.

Mr. COTTON. There is widespread agreement in the community and in our State that this site is not just a part of Arkansas' history, it is a part of our national heritage. Central High stands as a reminder of an article Billy Graham published during the crisis, ``No Color Line in Heaven.'' It was a hard-won lesson and one I think we should do everything we can to pass on to the next generation.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, over the weekend I heard a story I wanted to share with everyone here today. The story goes that there were three candles burning on a porch right across the street from the Cornwell Funeral Home in Dardanelle, AR--my hometown, just a couple blocks away from my home. A family had lit them in the memory of the three people who were brutally murdered last week in Chickalah, just a few miles outside of Dardanelle. One of those slain was Lieutenant Kevin Mainhart of the Yell County Sheriff's Department, who was killed after he stopped a man wanted in a domestic disturbance. In honor of his 5 years of service to Yell County--on top of the 20 years of service he rendered to the West Memphis Police Department--his fellow officers escorted in their cruisers the white hearse carrying his body from the State crime laboratory in Little Rock back to Dardanelle. The family across the street had lit a green candle, specifically for Lieutenant Mainhart, and the three candles burned all the night. But as the hearse pulled into the funeral home, the green candle suddenly went out. You could say that it was nothing more than a strange coincidence, but I think there is something especially poignant about the sudden, tragic loss of Lieutenant Mainhart's life so close to National Police Week, which began on Sunday. Like that green candle, Lieutenant Mainhart lit up his community, and, like that flickering flame, his life was too brief. Like every American this week, I wish to pay my respects to Lieutenant Mainhart and the noble profession he chose. One of the things which struck me about Lieutenant Mainhart's death was that it came so early in the morning. The stop occurred at 7:18 a.m. He had the whole day and his whole life in front of him. He was only 46 years old, but he had made the most of his time on this Earth. He was a husband, a father, an Air Force vet, a beloved member of our community. Hundreds of people don't line the streets for just anybody. Yet, in a moment, he was gone--his family bereft, our community in mourning. It is a reminder of how precious and fragile every life really is. It also goes to show just how brave every police officer really is, because this is the risk they take every morning. They put on the uniform, they kiss their families good-bye, and they go to work, never fully certain they will get home that night. Yet the ever-present threat of death doesn't hold them down. It doesn't hold them back. It doesn't dim the brilliance of their service. They give it their all, day after day, without giving it a moment's thought. That, to me, is the ultimate sign of character--when you do the right thing without even thinking about it. People like this are hard to come by. The sad truth is, we need a lot of them. A free country always does, because there is no freedom without security. We are so used to this basic fact--that for most of us, most of the time we are safe--that we forget how remarkable it is. Not so many people on God's green Earth can take that safety for granted. We often forget what it takes to secure it. We forget how easily we can lose it--and lose men and women like Lieutenant Mainhart--in an instant. It is with this in mind--this grave understanding of what our safety requires--that I once again speak against continued efforts to water down Federal sentencing laws. I thought this ill-advised idea had expired last year, especially after Donald Trump's election. But advocates for criminal leniency are at it again, even though violent crime continued to rise in our cities for 2 years straight, and law enforcement officers are being killed in the line of duty. I have already made my position clear. If we want to take a second look at punishments for first-time drug possession, let's do that. But we should know that fewer than 500 people are in Federal prison for such offenses. If we want to clean up our prisons, rehabilitate felons, and help them achieve redemption, by all means, let's do that, too. I would even consider a bill to speed up review of inmates' applications for pardons and commutations, to help the President exercise this constitutional authority. But we should not--we should not--lower mandatory minimums for violent crimes, repeat offenders, and drug trafficking. There is nothing compassionate about putting the lives of innocent people--and our law enforcement officers--at risk. Lieutenant Mainhart isn't the only one. There were three police officers killed in the line of duty last year in Arkansas: Robert Barker in the McCrory Police Department, William Cooper in the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office, and Lisa Mauldin in the Miller County Sheriff's Office. Every one of these losses was too steep a price to pay, and unwise criminal leniency policies put at risk their fellow officers and our communities. I know it is considered old-fashioned to be tough on crime--or, even worse, cold-hearted and mean. But a man doesn't put a lock on his door because he hates those on the outside. He does it because he loves those on the inside--his wife, his kids, all his family--because they are the joy of his life. The men and women of law enforcement don't just protect their own families--they protect all of our families. Every day those men and women put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens. The least we can do is to stand behind them and support them, both for the work they do and for the lives they lead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am speaking tomorrow at an Air Force ROTC commissioning ceremony at the University of Arkansas. As I have been preparing my remarks, I have been thinking a lot about the airmen who have left more than contrails behind them--the men and women who served with such distinction that we still remember them to this day, those great Americans, the heroes of the sky. The first name that came to mind, the name that resounded louder than almost any other is the great Leo Thorsness, so you can imagine how saddened I was to hear about his passing last week. Whenever you hear such a legend has left the Earth, it is like a sudden crack of thunder in the dead of night. It wakes you up. It sobers you. It reminds you of what we have lost because Leo Thorsness was an American classic. Born in Walnut Grove, MN, his childhood sounds as idyllic as his hometown. He joined the Boy Scouts and later rose to become an Eagle Scout. He met his wife Gaylee in the freshman registration line at South Dakota State College. They married 3 years later and had one daughter, Dawn. He joined the Air Force, went to flying school, and became a pilot. Soon, he was a fighter pilot in both the Strategic and Tactical Air Commands. Looking back on his life, we can see Leo Thorsness was part of an era--those burly, self-confident, middle-class families who, after the Great Depression and the greatest of wars, put down roots and built the booming America of the mid to late 20th century. Of course, Leo was not simply a part of his generation; he inspired it with his courage and self-sacrifice. For many Americans, the only number they remember from the Vietnam years is their draft number. But for Leo Thorsness, there are two numbers that stick out: 88 and 93. It was on his 88th mission for the Air Force that he performed the noble deeds for which he would later receive the Medal of Honor. He was flying an F-105 Thunderchief with his weapons specialist, Harold Johnson. They were escorting fighter bombers targeting a North Vietnamese army barracks. They shot down a MIG, roughed up another, and hit two missile batteries. They were low on ammo and fuel, but they fought on. He continued to scare off MIGs and instructed a tanker plane to refuel another fighter. When he finally landed 70 miles south in Thailand, the fuel tank was on empty. It was a stunning act of bravery. It was on his 93rd mission, just seven shy of completing his tour of duty, that Leo Thorsness was shot down. He was captured and spent 6 years in the ``Hanoi Hilton''--6 years in the darkness. It was there that he met his cellmate, our colleague and future Senator, John McCain. Imagining 6 days in such a terrible place is more than most people can handle, never mind 6 years. But Leo Thorsness endured; he saw the mission through. When he returned in 1973, it was to an astonished and grateful nation, but the man himself was unfazed. He called his wife after being released and said: ``I would have called sooner, but I've been all tied up.'' He later went on to serve in the Washington State Senate and run for other offices. But his legacy is not one of the titles he won; it is the example he set. He was quite a man, Leo Thorsness. And though we have lost him, we will keep his memory for a good long time to come. Leo Thorsness, rest in peace. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am going to be voting no on this 1,700- page bill. I am not blind to some of the good parts of the bill. It includes last year's Intelligence Authorization Act, and it includes some parts of the bill that I worked on that would counteract Russian activities in the United States and Europe--provisions that were blocked by the Obama administration since they refused to ever get tough on Russia. It increases defense spending, although not to an adequate degree in relation to the threats we face. For the first time in years, it recognizes that every dollar we spend on defense doesn't have to be matched by another dollar elsewhere in our budget. Now, there are parts of this bill that got dropped that I would like to have seen, for instance, blocking Federal funding for sanctuary cities. We might as well call them ``outlaw cities'' because they refuse to comply with Federal immigration law and turn over illegal immigrants facing deportation to Federal authorities. But I want to hone in on one particular provision that shows just how bad this process is. In a 1,700-page bill, they don't hide the good things in the bill. They only hide the bad things. So look to page 735, section 543, where you will find an increase in H-2B visas of almost 79,000--a 120-percent increase over the normal annual cap of a so- called seasonal visa program for temporary workers that can take up to 9 or 10 months. It is not necessary. It has nothing to do with funding the government--nothing. It hasn't been vetted. It hasn't gone through the normal legislative process, which would be the Judiciary Committee, where the chairman and the senior Democrat both have written that they oppose this measure. I don't even know how it got in there. I don't know if it was the chairman or the ranking member. They may not know. It is 1,700 pages, after all. It takes hours to even figure out what it means because it is so complicated in language. But this is what it does: It takes jobs away from American workers and abuses the immigrants that come into this country. In the past 10 years, the Department of Labor has found 800 employers--800--that have abused 23,000 guest workers--everything from stealing their wages, demanding bribes for their visas, and even sexual abuse--and those are only the ones that have been caught. That is because unlike American workers, these immigrant workers cannot leave their job. If they are fired, they go back to their home country, where they often have huge families who are depending on them for their remittances. Their employers know that, and they take advantage of them. It is a newfangled form of indentured servitude. Some people in this institution complain about the way Arab countries treat guest workers from South Asia and Southeast Asia. The conditions under which some of these H-2B workers operate are hardly much better. They live in filth and squalor. They are charged exorbitant fees for their housing and for their food. The employers largely get away with it because they know that these immigrant workers will not complain. They will not go to the authorities. They will not report it to the Department of Labor because if they do, they go back to their home country. Those are just the immigrant workers. What about the American workers? There are a lot of reasons why unscrupulous American employers favor temporary guest workers. They don't have to pay payroll taxes on them, for instance. They don't have to pay unemployment taxes on them. But the real reason is that those guest workers have virtually no leverage to demand higher wages. As I said, they can be sent home because they are tied to a single employer. Americans have more bargaining power. If they can get a better wage down the road, then they will go down the road. If they get better benefits, they can go to a new job, but those guest workers cannot. So the employers who abuse the H-2B program go to the greatest lengths to avoid hiring an American worker. The program says you have to advertise for the jobs in advance, and they do, hundreds of miles away in obscure newspapers that have nothing to do with the employer's local economy. Many employers discourage Americans from applying in the first place. Remember, these are unskilled labor positions--unskilled. These are not high-tech jobs, but unskilled guest workers. They subject American workers to the most extreme, unreasonable, extraneous tests before they hire them--tests they do not give to those foreign guest workers because they can pay them lower wages. When they finally are forced to hire an American worker, because they face penalties from the Department of Labor if they don't, they try to make conditions as bad as possible for them so they can fire them and then replace them with a foreigner. A lot of arguments for this kind of program boil down to this: No American will do that job. That is a lie. It is a lie. There is no job that Americans will not do. There is no industry in America where a majority of workers are not native born, American citizens, or first generation lawful immigrants--not landscapers, not construction workers, not ski instructors, not lifeguards, not resort workers--not a single one. If the wage is decent and the employer obeys the law, Americans will do the job. If it is not, then, they should pay higher wages. To say anything else is an insult to the work ethic of the American people who make this country run. We just had an election in which the President distinguished himself more on immigration than on any other single issue. We all realize that, right? We all realize that uncontrolled mass migration is upending the politics and societies all across Europe. My colleagues realize that, right? What is it going to take for the people in Washington, DC, to realize just how out of touch they are when it comes to protecting the jobs and the wages of American workers? I will vote no, and I will say that today is not the day when Washington realizes just how out of touch they are. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to highlight what I consider an unsung achievement of this administration and this Congress--the slow but steady rollback of the last administration's midnight regulations. The numbers are impressive. Using the Congressional Review Act, we have repealed 13 regulations so far, which adds up to a $3.6 billion reduction in regulatory costs. To put it in more human terms, we have saved the American people 4.2 million hours of paperwork, which I can tell you is more than welcome news in Arkansas. The other thing about these resolutions we have passed is that they are permanent. We haven't simply put these regulations on pause for a future President to revive them with a pen and phone. No, we have outlawed them forever. Any President who wants to reimpose them and their huge costs will have to pass a new law to do so, making the rules we live under and the people who make them accountable to the voters. That is a bit of a foreign concept to the people in Washington these days. But the way I see it, that is all the more reason to celebrate what we have achieved. I know the other side will say: This is a dark day for America. To hear them tell it, blotting out all these regulations will leave a dark stain on our law books. To them, this rollback is a throwback to a dangerous, rough-and-tumble era--one filled with dirty air, dirty water, and a frighteningly low quality of life. But it just ain't so. Stop and take a look at the regulations we have repealed, and then ask yourself: Why should Washington decide how we evaluate our teachers? Shouldn't parents, States, and cities do that? Why shouldn't States be able to test for drugs before handing out unemployment insurance? Is that such an unreasonable request? Why are bureaucrats who are sitting in an office thousands of miles away managing our land and wildlife? Shouldn't it be the people who live right there? Why should Federal bureaucrats be able to override a law duly passed by Congress and signed by the President? Do any of these regulations add much to our quality of life? Is this really about protecting the public interest? Or is it more about rewarding special interests? In fact, I can understand why liberals are bewildered at the idea that all these rules are hurting jobs, because these rules certainly are creating jobs--for lawyers and lobbyists. If there had been a bill, it would have been called ``The American Bar Association Full Employment Act.'' That, perhaps, is the real issue here. It is not a question of whether we are going to live under rules. We have rules--plenty of them. The question is this: What kinds of rules are we going to live under? Are we going to pass laws that impose costs on rural America, only to add more wealth to urban America? Are we going to kill blue- collar jobs so we can create more white-collar jobs? Or are we going to pass laws that help all Americans in all walks of life, as we should? When you look at things this way, I would say we have scored a pretty impressive victory, indeed, over these last 3 months. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor to honor the memory of former Congressman Jay Dickey, who passed on April 20. When Jay Dickey roamed the Halls of Congress, you knew there might be mischief afoot-- and what merry mischief it was. Jay was opinionated, colorful, and zany. Now that he has passed, the warm laughter of memories once again echoes in these cold, marble halls as we reflect on his life. He died last Thursday after a battle with Parkinson's, a battle he fought like every other--with determination and gusto. I, for one, will miss his counsel and friendship, as will the people of Arkansas whom he loved so deeply. Jay was an Arkansas original. He was born and bred and in the end breathed his last in his hometown of Pine Bluff. He shared a lot in common with the mighty pines of South Arkansas. He stood tall and proud of his community's heritage. He was a pillar of the community. A lawyer and a businessman, he left his mark as an entrepreneur, starting franchises throughout the State, as an advocate representing the city and later taking on such famous clients as coach Eddie Sutton. Unlike the proverbial tree in the forest, now that Jay Dickey has fallen, the whole State has taken notice. But, of course, a man's accomplishments are only a window into his character. You had to know Jay personally to get a sense of all the fun there was inside him. It was as if his feet had sunk deep into the soil and soaked up all of the Natural State's richness: its humor, its earnestness, and its strip-the-bark-off candor. I got to know Jay in my first political campaign. We had never met, and I was a political newcomer, but Jay spent many hours getting to know me and ultimately supported my candidacy, which helped to put me on the map. Of course, Jay shared a lot of candid advice too. After attending one of my early townhalls, Jay and I went to lunch down the road at Cracker Barrel. I asked him how I did. Jay replied: Ya did good. Ya did good. But you gotta cut it down some. Ya see that baked potato there? That's a fully loaded baked potato--it's got cheese, sour cream, bacon, onions. Your answers are like that fully loaded baked potato! Make em like a plain potato. That is just one of the countless stories that added to his legend. This was the man who offered a ninth grader a college-level internship because he thought the kid had potential; the man who answered any phone in his office that rang twice, just to keep his staff on their toes; the man whose dog once drove his truck into a radio station in Hampton because he left the truck running during an interview to keep the dog cool, and somehow that dog put it in gear; the man who kept a picture of Jesus on his wall, and who, when meeting a new client, would point to the picture and say: ``Have you met my friend?'' Yes, the first great joy of his life was his faith, but the second great joy was politics. Jay was the first Republican elected to Congress from South Arkansas since Reconstruction. He won in 1992, the very same year Arkansas elected our Democratic Governor as President. Despite being who the Democrats must have viewed as the most Republican incumbent in the country, he held onto that seat for almost a decade. Arkansans knew good stock when they saw it. He lost only by the narrowest of margins in 2000, with President Bill Clinton campaigning for his opponent, then-State Senator Mike Ross. True to form for Jay, he and Mike would become friends after that race, speaking regularly about issues and their faith. Jay's time in office will not be remembered as a historical oddity, an anomaly, or a one-off because unconventional though it was, it was also a forerunner of things to come. It was an early sign of a coming political realignment, as the small towns that dotted rural America-- towns where few people had ever even seen a Republican, never mind voted for one--were starting to cast their votes up and down the ballot for the Grand Old Party. In other words, Jay Dickey was a trailblazer--or perhaps a bulldozer. He smashed through history and precedent and grooved a path in rough terrain for the rest of us to follow. For that, he has my thanks and the thanks of the people of Arkansas, and for his humorous, quirky, unparalleled example, he has the thanks of the U.S. Congress, which today is a little sadder for his passing but also a little brighter for his memory. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, this week the Senate will fulfill one of our most important responsibilities: advice and consent for a nominee to the Supreme Court. The stakes don't get much higher than a lifetime appointment to a court of final appeal, especially if the court has presumed over the last two generations to take more and more political and moral questions out of the hands of the people. President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, a distinguished jurist who understands the critical but limited role of the Federal courts in our constitutional system. To my knowledge, no Senator genuinely disputes his eminent qualifications, his judicial temperament, and his outstanding record over the last decade on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, Judge Gorsuch would appear headed toward an easy, noncontroversial confirmation based on the comments by Democratic Senators. The senior Senator from Colorado introduced Judge Gorsuch at his confirmation hearings with this high praise: I have no doubt that . . . Judge Gorsuch has profound respect for an independent judiciary and the vital role it plays as a check on the executive and legislative branches. I may not always agree with his rulings, but I believe Judge Gorsuch is unquestionably committed to the rule of law. The senior Senator from Indiana recently announced his support for Judge Gorsuch, saying: I believe that he is a qualified jurist who will base his decisions on his understanding of the law and is well respected among his peers. The senior Senator from West Virginia has noted: [Judge Gorsuch] has been consistently rated as a well- qualified jurist, the highest rating a jurist can receive, and I have found him to be an honest and thoughtful man. The junior Senator from North Dakota also praised Judge Gorsuch for his ``record as a balanced, meticulous, and well-respected jurist who understands the rule of law.'' Remember, these admiring statements all come from Democrats, and all of them support an up-or-down vote on confirming Judge Gorsuch. Even those who oppose Judge Gorsuch used to sing a different tune about the standards for judicial confirmation. For instance, the senior Senator from California put it best when she said: I think, when it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court appointment, you really have to have something out there, whether it's gross moral turpitude or something that comes to the surface. Speaking of a previous Republican President's nominee, she further said: Now, I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court. In fact, President Obama filibustered a Supreme Court nomination while he was a Senator, yet later expressed regret over that decision. He said: I think that, historically, if you look at it, regardless of what votes particular Senators have taken, there's been a basic consensus, a basic understanding, that the Supreme Court is different. And each caucus may decide who's going to vote where and what but that basically you let the vote come up, and you make sure that a well-qualified candidate is able to join the bench even if you don't particularly agree with him. Despite all of this, though, it appears that a radical Democratic minority intends to filibuster Judge Gorsuch's nomination. The minority leader is encouraging this extreme fringe, claiming, ``If Judge Gorsuch fails to earn 60 votes and fails to demonstrate he is mainstream enough to sit on the highest court, we should change the nominee, not the rules.'' I will return later to the minority leader's central and ironic role in all of this. For now, let's take a trip down memory lane so as to understand just how radical this partisan filibuster would be. No Supreme Court nominee has ever failed because of a partisan filibuster--never, not once, ever--in the 228 years of our venerable Constitution. One nominee, Justice Abe Fortas--to be elevated to Chief Justice--lost one cloture vote in 1968 on a bipartisan basis. He then withdrew under an ethical cloud, but no Supreme Court nominee has ever been defeated by a partisan filibuster. This historical standard has nothing to do with changes in the Senate rules. The filibuster has been permitted under Senate rules since early in the 19th century. It is not a recent or a novel power. The cloture rule was adopted 100 years ago. In other words, at any point in our history, a Senate minority could have attempted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. They had the tools. The rules permitted it. It would have only taken one Senator--just one. Yet it never happened for a simple reason: self-restraint. While written rules are important, sometimes the unwritten rules are even more so. Habits, customs, mores, standards, traditions, practices--these are the things that make the world go round, in the U.S. Senate no less than in the game of life. Our form of self-government depends critically on this form of self- government. Let's reconsider some recent nominees in light of these facts. Justice Clarence Thomas was probably the most controversial nomination in my lifetime, perhaps ever. He was the subject of a vicious campaign of lies and partisan smears--a ``high-tech lynching'' in his words. He was confirmed in 1991 by a bare majority of 52-to-48. Yet Justice Thomas did not face a filibuster. Not a single Senator tried to block the up-or-down vote on his nomination--not Joe Biden, not Ted Kennedy, not Robert Byrd, not John Kerry--not one. Why? Any one Senator could have demanded a cloture vote, could have insisted on the so-called 60-vote standard and, perhaps, defeated Justice Thomas's nomination, but they did not because they respected two centuries of Senate tradition and custom. It was likewise with Justice Sam Alito, whose nomination unquestionably shifted the Court's balance to the right in 2006. He, too, received fewer than 60 votes for confirmation--58 to be exact--but he received 72 votes for cloture. Here again, a large, bipartisan majority upheld the Senate tradition and custom against partisan filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. Even Judge Robert Bork, whose name is now used as a verb to mean the ``unfair partisan treatment of a judicial nominee,'' received an up-or-down vote in 1987. Yes, Judge Bork, who only received 42 votes for confirmation, did not face a partisan filibuster. But let's not stop with Supreme Court nominations. Let's also consider other kinds of nominations so that we can understand just how radical is the Democratic minority's position. To this day, there has never been a Cabinet nominee defeated by a partisan filibuster--never, not once, ever--in 228 years of Senate history. To this day, there has never been a trial court nominee defeated by a partisan filibuster--never, not once, ever--in 228 years of Senate history. Until 2003--just 14 years ago--there had never been an appellate court nominee defeated by a partisan filibuster. That is just how strong the custom against filibusters was. It had never successfully happened in 214 years. From our founding, through secession and civil war, through world wars, no matter how intense the feeling and how momentous the occasion, no matter how partisan the atmosphere, Senators always exercised self- restraint and allowed up-or-down votes on nominees for the Supreme Court, the court of appeals, the trial court, and the Cabinet. But that changed in 2003, thanks in no small part to the senior Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, now the minority leader. With the help of leftwing law professors, he convinced extremists and the Democratic caucus to filibuster President Bush's appellate court nominees. For the first time in more than two centuries of the U.S. Senate, a radical minority defeated nominations with a partisan filibuster. Why did the Senate start down this path? Some point to racial politics and Miguel Estrada, who was one of the most talented appellate litigators of his generation and President Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit. That court is often a proving ground for future Supreme Court nominees, and Mr. Estrada's confirmation might have enabled President Bush to nominate him, subsequently, to the Supreme Court. A Republican President appointing the first Hispanic Justice? Surely, the Democrats couldn't allow that. Whatever the reason, there can be no doubt that the minority leader has set in motion a chain of events over the last 14 years and has brought us to the point he claims to deplore today. So the Democrats can spare me any hand-wringing about Senate traditions and customs. The minority leader and like-minded extremists in the Democratic caucus can also spare us their exaggerated claims of the Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominees. The Democrats, after all, were the ones who broke a 214-year-old tradition specifically to obstruct 10 of President Bush's nominees. Of course, the Republicans followed suit, though I would note that they have filibustered fewer judges over more years in their having been in the minority. Put simply, the Democrats broke one of the Senate's oldest customs in 2003 so that they could filibuster Republican judges, and they subsequently filibustered more judges than did the Republicans. So it should come as no surprise that the Democrats took an even more radical step in 2013 when they used the so-called nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch, trial court, and appellate court nominations. They broke the Senate rules by changing the Senate rules with a bare majority, not the effective two-thirds vote required under those rules. The radical Democrats will accept no constraints on their will to power--when in power. Whatever it takes to pack the courts with liberal extremists or to block eminently qualified Republican nominees is exactly what they will do. But don't take my word for it. Let's review what the Democrats were saying last year when they all believed they would be in power with Hillary Clinton as President and Democrats controlling the Senate. We did not hear much talk about the sacred 60-vote standard back then. On the contrary, the Democrats were promising to use the nuclear option again--this time to confirm a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court. Former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said: I have set the Senate so, when I leave, we're going to be able to get judges done with a majority. . . . If the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court Justice, I've told `em how, and I've done it . . . in changing the rules of the Senate. The junior Senator from Virginia, who would have been Vice President had Secretary Clinton won, said, quite frankly, about the Supreme Court vacancy: If these guys think they are going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ``We're not going to let you thwart the law.'' The junior Senator from Oregon warned ominously: If there's deep abuse, we're going to have to consider rules changes. The senior Senator from New Mexico perhaps summed it up best of all when he said: The Constitution does not give me the right to block a qualified nominee no matter who is in the White House. . . . A minority in the Senate should not be able to block qualified nominees. Do not think for a minute that the radical Democrats would not have made good on these threats. They have exercised little restraint on judicial nominations over the last 14 years. They have betrayed over 200 years of Senate tradition and custom. They would not start respecting those traditions now. In reality, there were good reasons to respect and uphold the old Senate tradition against the filibusters of nominees before 2003. First, our responsibility under the Constitution is not to choose but to advise and consent. A partisan filibuster would, essentially, encroach upon the President's power to nominate the person of his choice. Second, nominations are not susceptible to negotiation. We cannot split someone down the middle, Solomon-like. We can vote yes or no. This is not the case with legislation, where differences can be split, compromises negotiated, and bipartisan consensus reached. Third, when legislation fails to win 60 votes, it is not the end of the world; it can go back to the drawing board or be enacted through other legislative vehicles. But when nominations are long delayed or defeated, then real work is left undone, cases go unheard, disputes go unresolved, and the law remains unclear. It would have been better for the Senate if the minority leader and the Democrats had recognized these things in 2003 and not started us down this path, the end of which we reach this week. It is rarely a good thing when an institution ignores or breaks its customs and traditions, its unwritten rules. They should have known better, and they should have acted better. But we have come to this point because the radical Democrats didn't act any better. Now they propose to create a new standard never known to exist before: The Senate will not confirm a Republican President's nominees to the Supreme Court, because if the Democrats will filibuster Neil Gorsuch, then they will filibuster any Republican nominee. I will never accept this double standard, and neither will my colleagues. Republicans aren't going to be played for suckers and chumps. After this week, the Senate will be back to where it always was and where it should have remained: Nominees brought to the floor ought to receive an up-or-down, simple-majority vote. And don't expect to hear regret from me about it. There is no moral equivalence here between the two parties. To suggest any equivalence is to divorce action from its intent and aim. In 2003 and again at this moment, the radical Democrats overturned venerable Senate traditions. The Republicans are acting to restore them. Those who cannot see the difference, to borrow from Bill Buckley, would also see no difference between a man who pushes an old lady into the path of an oncoming bus and a man who pushes the old lady out of the path of the bus, because after all, both men push around old ladies. So I am not regretful. I am not wracked with guilt. I am not anguished. I am really not even disappointed. There are no school yard taunts of ``you did it first.'' There are no charges of hypocrisy. There is no pox on both our houses. The Republicans are prepared to use a tool the Democrats first abused in 2013 to restore a 214-year-old tradition the Democrats first broke in 2003, and we are supposed to feel guilty? Please. The radical Democrats brought this all on themselves and on the Senate. The responsibility rests solely and squarely on their shoulders. The minority leader is hoist with his own petard, the Senate is restored to a sensible, centuries-old tradition, and Judge Gorsuch is about to become Justice Gorsuch. Not a bad outcome. Not bad at all. Pretty good, in fact. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 30, 2017, in the President's room, S-216 in the Capitol, in order to vote on the nomination of George ``Sonny'' Perdue, of Georgia, to be Secretary of Agriculture. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of Honorable Heather A. Wilson to be Secretary of the Air Force. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Thursday, March 30, 2017, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Committees on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled The Road Ahead: U.S. Interests, Values, and the American People. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 30, in between votes in S-216, to consider the following: Nomination of Alexander Acosta to serve as Secretary of Labor. Select Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Thursday, March 30, 2017 from 10 a.m. for Panel I, and from 2 p.m. for Panel II, in room SD-106 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold open hearings entitled Disinformation: A Primer in Russian Active Measures and Influence Campaigns.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, when his nomination comes to the floor next week, I will vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This is my first time voting on a Supreme Court nominee, and I don't take the decision lightly. It is a lifetime appointment, after all, and the Court's rulings have shaped our country's history--for good and for ill--and will continue to shape our future. But after reading Judge Gorsuch's writings, meeting with him in person, and listening to his testimony, I can say with confidence that it is not a hard call. I believe Judge Gorsuch will be a fine addition to the Supreme Court. There is no denying Judge Gorsuch's distinctive qualifications. We all know his credentials: Columbia, Harvard law, and an Oxford doctorate to boot. He clerked for an appellate judge and two Supreme Court Justices. He had many years of experience in both private practice and in public service and, of course, over 10 years as an appellate judge. He possesses fine judicial temperament: highly erudite, highly accomplished, and highly regarded by those who know him best. It is no surprise, then, that the American Bar Association, in a unanimous vote, declared him ``well qualified'' for the job. While I wouldn't outsource our responsibilities to any advocacy organization, I would note that the minority leader himself once said the ABA rating is ``the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.'' But, of course, Judge Gorsuch is not just filling any seat, but the seat once held by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia was a giant of American jurisprudence. Most Justices earn their place in history by writing opinions, giving voice to their colleagues, and speaking for the Court as a whole. Justice Scalia did that many times throughout his career, of course, but he did something more. He changed the way judges--both conservative and liberal--think about the law and defend their decisions. He reminded us all that a judge's job is to apply the law--including the Constitution, our most fundamental law--as written, to the case before him, not to rewrite it all together. Adhering to the law, even when the judge doesn't like the result, is the greatest public service that a judge can render, because to respect the rule of law is ultimately to respect the rule of the people. This is what Justice Scalia taught and what he inspired a whole generation of judges and lawyers to understand. As we prepare to fill his seat on the Supreme Court, let us also acknowledge that no man can fill his shoes. We honor the memory of Justice Scalia and we thank his wife, Maureen, and his whole family for sharing this great man with our country for so long. Judge Gorsuch is a child of the Scalia generation. He has long advocated for and followed the originalist judicial craft--one rooted in the text, structure, and history of our Constitution, which is to say that he respects the rule of law and he respects the people. Whether defending the religious liberty of the Little Sisters of the Poor or the Fourth Amendment rights of a regular household, he has shown a profound respect for the Constitution. I also think he has demonstrated throughout his career a firm independence of thought. He has had his influences and his mentors, his promoters and his critics, but I believe he will be his own man--as he should be. So I am pleased to announce my support for the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch. I look forward to his confirmation next week.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I returned last week from the Middle East, where several colleagues and I spent the weekend meeting with leaders and security officials in Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. As usual, the men and women who assisted us were consummate professionals, whether it was the U.S. Marines, Embassy personnel, or our own military escorts and congressional staff. They all did a superb job, and I want to extend to them my deepest thanks. I want to say a few words about what we learned while we were there. Contrary to conventional wisdom, our allies told us they are more optimistic about their relationship with the United States now than they were under the last administration. If you thought diplomacy consisted simply of suave sophistication, I can understand your confusion. But among our allies, there is no confusion about what their interests are, how the United States shares them, and which country in the whole region threatens them most of all--Iran. Once you realize that, it is not so hard to understand their morale boost. Do they watch what we say? Yes, of course, very carefully. But they watch even more carefully what we do, and even though our foreign policy was cloaked in ``pretty words'' over the last 8 years, they see the difference in leadership as clear as day. The last President coddled Iran, and this President is confronting Iran. Every conversation we had drove home this point: Iran is the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East. That is because it is more than a regional power, it is a revolutionary power. The regime in Tehran is not satisfied with finding good trading partners or even bullying other countries into proper neighborly deference. Big countries throw their weight around all the time, after all. No, what is different about this regime is that it is not trying to create clients; it is trying to create clones. It wants to expand its influence by subverting legitimate governments in places such as Yemen and Lebanon and replacing them with radical regimes. Countries that it can't subvert, it tries to destroy, like our friend Israel. And its aggressive sectarian ideology drives Sunni Muslims into the arms of extremist groups like the Islamic State. There is no getting around the fact that in the Middle East, the answer to most questions is Iran, and our allies have told me repeatedly in recent months that they need our help to confront Tehran's campaign of imperial aggression. In Lebanon, I am happy to say there are some signs of hope. The new Prime Minister, Sa'ad Hariri, has formed a government and is purportedly on the verge of approving a budget--the first of its kind since 2005. For years, the Lebanese Government has struggled with the growing influence of Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, members of which are on trial for carrying out the assassination of the Prime Minister's father, Rafic, in 2005. But now that Hezbollah is committed to the war in Syria, the Lebanese Government has an opportunity to take control of its border, its army, and its governing institutions, free of their terrorist influence. We should take all prudent steps to support Lebanon as it strives to create security and stability for its own people and its neighbors. Then there is Jordan, which for so long has been a relative island of calm in a tumultuous region. The Hashemite monarchy has been a faithful friend to America for years, but now, for the first time in recent history, Jordan faces a hostile, aggressive power on its borders--ISIS. It is also under an immense strain as it deals with hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees living in its territory. Today, Jordan spends up to 25 percent of its budget on helping refugees. We need to continue helping this bulwark of stability stand against the forces of Islamic extremism by sharing intelligence, helping train police and counterterrorism forces, and partnering in the fight against ISIS. Finally, there is Israel, which it is no secret that the regime in Tehran has vowed to destroy. While we were overseas, Israeli warplanes struck deep into the heart of Syrian territory. They were targeting a convoy of advanced missiles bound for Hezbollah. In a serious escalation, Syria fired missiles not only at Israeli aircraft but at Israeli territory, one of which was intercepted by the Arrow 2 missile defense system. This incident goes to show just how important our aid is to protecting Israel's security and how important Israel is to confronting Iranian-sponsored aggression. We must continue to support Israel and its development of advanced missile defense systems. I am happy to report that all three of our allies continue to seek ever-closer friendship with the United States. They are optimistic about their ability to work together under the new administration, and they sincerely appreciate everything our country has done for them. I saw for myself a reminder of this country's sacrifice at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. There, you will find a memorial that is dedicated to the 241 Americans who died in the terrorist bombing of our Marine barracks in 1983. That atrocity was committed by Hezbollah, if anyone needed a reminder as to why we fight alongside our allies against the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria axis in the contest of supremacy in the Middle East. If our trip taught us anything, it was that our allies will not give up the fight but that it will take American leadership to stop Iran's campaign of imperial aggression. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on Executive Calendar No. 1, the Montenegro treaty, be expired; that all pending amendments be withdrawn, the resolution of ratification be reported, and the Senate vote on the resolution of ratification with no intervening action or debate; and that if the resolution of ratification is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I recently read a story in the Wall Street Journal that I thought was so alarming it demanded action. Here is the headline: ``Marathon Pharmaceuticals to Charge $89,000 for Muscular Dystrophy Drug After 70-Fold Increase.'' Yes, that is $89,000 a year, and, yes, that is a 70-fold increase-- 70-fold, as in 7,000 percent. For those of you who have not read the article, here is the story. There is a rare disease called Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It affects about 12,000 young men in the United States. Most of them, unfortunately, end up dying in their twenties and thirties because of it. We don't have a cure yet for Duchenne. Until recently, there was not even a treatment with FDA approval. So, for many years, patients and parents have been importing a drug called deflazacort, a steroid, from other countries. Even though it is not a cure, it at least helps treat symptoms and has been a welcome relief to many families. Well, technically it is illegal to import a drug that doesn't have FDA approval. But there is a catch. The FDA does not quite enforce the ban against all unapproved drugs. In fact, it has issued regulatory guidance saying that you can get an exemption and buy an unapproved drug from overseas if you meet five conditions. First, you have to have a serious illness for which there is no other treatment available. Second, you can't sell the drug. Third, you can't pose an unreasonable risk to your health. Fourth, it has to be for you and you alone. Fifth, you can't buy more than a 3-month supply. All of that sounds fair enough. But if someone comes along and gets FDA approval for their version of the exact same drug, the exact same chemical composition of the drug that is being imported, then you cannot buy it overseas anymore. That is exactly what happened here. This was not a new drug. This was not a medical breakthrough. This was not a scientific advance. This was, plain and simple, an arbitrage opportunity. Other people had already gone to the trouble of making a drug that worked, but if you paid the expenses of getting FDA approval, you would essentially buy for yourself monopoly pricing power. That is what other companies missed, and now, to cover the costs of going through that approval process, Marathon is increasing the price from roughly $1,500 a year to $89,000 a year. I don't think it is an overstatement to say that this turn of events is nothing short of outrageous. It defeats the very purposes of our FDA laws. The reason we offer people the chance to create a monopoly is to encourage innovation and medical breakthroughs, to generate new drugs that are going to solve diseases or illnesses. What we are saying is, if you go to the pain and expense of developing a new treatment, we will give you the sole rights to sell it for a number of years so you can recover your costs, and, therefore, we will encourage more medical breakthroughs to alleviate the pain and suffering of the American people. In other words, monopoly rights are not merit badges. They are not a reward for business smarts. They are supposed to serve the interests of patients. They are supposed to expand access to treatment. But in this case, what we see in our system is, in fact, restricting access and driving up the price for that coverage. I understand that many people with Duchenne are happy that Marathon has done this because now that the drug has FDA approval, insurance companies will likely cover it--unlike before when people had to pay out of pocket, meaning that poor kids didn't get access to deflazacort, whereas upper middle-class and rich kids typically did. I also know that Marathon has promised to increase spending on research on a new drug and to help people of limited means afford that treatment. That, too, is all to the good. I am not casting aspersions on anyone's motives here, but let's be real. Someone has to pay the full price of this drug at $89,000 a year. We have a drug that used to be available for $1,500 a year, and now it is $89,000 a year. Whatever happened, that is a systemwide failure. We as a Congress have to address it. There is simply no getting around the fact that this story should never have been written in the first place because it should have never happened in the first place. We should be channeling peoples' ambition and entrepreneurial spirit into finding cures, not finding new and clever ways to make a profit. That is what our food and drug laws are designed to do. That is what they have clearly failed to do in this instance. I just want to say that I am not going to let this story disappear. I am going to work with my colleagues to find a legislative solution to this mess and promote affordable, high-quality healthcare for all, for all families whose young children suffer from Duchenne and for every other orphan disease that has drugs that can be used for treatment and right now are being blocked from the market or for which we are paying way too much money as a society. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, it is hard to overstate the amount of distrust there is between rural America and the EPA. I represent the State of Arkansas, where about 70,000 of our citizens are farmers. Agriculture is our largest industry, adding about $16 billion to our economy every year. But even those members--big as they are--can't give you a full appreciation of just how important the land is to our people. Sure, they make a living off it, but farming isn't just an ``industry'' to us--it is not just another statistical category like ``nondurable goods manufacturing.'' It is a way of life. The people of Arkansas cultivate the land. They nurture it. They teach their children how to care for it. These are people who get up at 5 a.m. to milk the cows. They have had these farms in their families for generations. They pass on the land--and the values they have learned along with it. They believe in the EPA's mission of preserving a healthy environment just as much as anyone. Yes, they are stewards of the earth, these men and women, yet the EPA too often treats them as criminals. In the last 8 years alone, the EPA has been treating their property rights more like a form of parole. It has passed sweeping regulations that presume to tell farmers when they can plant and how often they can run a tractor. It has declared something as tiny as a mud puddle on a family farm as a ``navigable water''--thus under the EPA's jurisdiction it has put on a show of soliciting ``feedback'' from the people who have to live under its rules, while cavalierly dismissing most of their concerns, and all the while pursuing an activist agenda, whether through the Clean Power Plan or the waters of the United States rule, it has failed to fulfill its core mission: keeping our people safe. Just remember, the EPA helped bring criminal charges and a $15,000 fine against a North Carolina farm owner who accidentally spilled cow dung into a river; yet when it caused the wastewater spill into the Animas River, it stalled and withheld important information from investigators. If a company had acted like the EPA, it would likely have faced criminal charges-- brought about by the EPA. It is this state of affairs that our next EPA Administrator will inherit, and I want to take this opportunity to say President's Trump nominee, Scott Pruitt, has my support. I think he is especially qualified to lead the Agency at this time because he comes from rural America himself. As the attorney general of Oklahoma, he fought the EPA's overreach in court more than half a dozen times. I believe he understands that Arkansas farmers and the American people know the needs of their land far better than Washington bureaucrats do. When I met with him a few weeks ago, we discussed the impact EPA regulations are having on Arkansas farms, businesses, and energy companies. We also talked about Fort Smith's issues with an inflexible EPA consent decree. It was clear from our conversation he knew environmental law backwards and forwards, but he also had something else: a real-world appreciation of the burden that heavy- handed regulations put on our farmers and on rural America. I believe Scott Pruitt understands we can have both a robust economy and a healthy environment. I believe he will pull back the EPA's excesses and focus on its core mission. I believe, under his leadership, the EPA can begin to rebuild the trust it has lost with rural America, the trust that is necessary for it to achieve its goals. And so, for all of these reasons, I will be voting to confirm.